So Russia switched off Ukraine's gas. Thoughts, reactions, etc.
Буде холодно у Києві....
Printable View
So Russia switched off Ukraine's gas. Thoughts, reactions, etc.
Буде холодно у Києві....
Well, supposedly, Kiev says it can make it through the winter -- so they wouldn't necessarily be cold -- just chilly (but then again, assuming they could last, say only 3 days -- would they actually admit it?).
What I found really interesting is that Ukraine claims it has a contract right to 15% of the transported fuel, as a tariff for the pipeline crossing their territory. OK, fine -- but the Russian side is saying it would be straight-up theft, as it wasn't covered by the contract at all. Setting this entire issue aside for a second, shouldn't somebody know what the contract says, one way or the other -- or do these officials just sign these things while they're drunk?
Going back to the 15%, it will be interesting to see if the Ukrainians elect to exercise this right/theft since they'll essentially be taking European countries' oil -- Moscow will still have its money, presumably. Ultimately, though, they do seem to have quite a bit of leverage, since all these pipelines cross their territory. They may get cool and their industry may suffer, but Russia needs a way to sell that gas, too -- let's not forget that the oil/gas sector makes up a big chunk of their economy.
I can see the point that Russia makes. Why should it subsidise Ukraine?
But implementing such steap price increases overnight is harsh, especially on a weak economy like Ukraine's.
It is a bit hypocritical of the Ukrainian government to want to be all pro-West and be properly independant of Russia but at the same time have Russia subsidise them.
But as I said before, its more about the time frame, rather than the actual price increase.
Most of the gas that goes through Ukraine goes to Germany, and other major recipients are Austria, Italy and France. If Ukraine starts taking gas and the flow to these Western European countries is affected, they are just gonna get pissed with Russia and not Ukraine.
To which the Russian rebuttal would be: "We offered them loans and to postpone the rate hike for 3 months, if they'd just agree to it."Quote:
Originally Posted by TATY
But, of course, you are basically right; the Russian side is being a bit ridiculous -- and let's just cut the crap, and admit it: Ukraine no longer wants to have a unique relationship with Russia, and so the Russians are cutting loose of its benefits -- not that there's anything wrong with that. Look, Kiev wants to be part of the NATO/EU club, which is fine, great, and wonderful, but they shouldn't expect to keep the perks from the "competing club." Let's flip the scenario a bit by playing that time-honored game "What if?" What if, say, a NATO member, were to join the Warsaw Pact (we're playing "what if" here, remember). Do you think that we'd say "ok, that's fine guys -- we're going to continue to supply you with military hardware!" Of course not. To offer up an analogy, you can run as a Republican or a Democrat -- but don't expect to be funded by both parties.
Oh, and the word crap is censored? What the crap!?!?
I think that this is quite fair. That's why after I noticed that the local TV cable company had routed the cable to my neighbors' telvision through my appartment I felt compelled to get out my tool kit and tap into it. Wouldn't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barmaley
А почему вожди-командиры розовых демократий молчат - грузины, там, всякие и проч? Что-то не слыхать г-на Саакашвили, что-то не протягивает он щедрую длань помощи своим ученикам-укаринцам. Мирно посапывает Молдавия со совоей красно-коммунистической демократией. Ба, совсем затухла Прибалтика со своими эсэсовцами! Есть такое слово - "кусты". Возможно, это кусты роз или апельсинов, но хорошее место, знаете-ли, чтобы сидеть тихо-претихо и обсираться со страху. :D
Извините за немножечко хулиганский комментарий. :)
Bad news, Ukraine. Mooching off over.
Анекдот в тему, недавно мною услышанный:
Январь 2006 года. Фрадков заходит к Путину.
- Европа в панике - без газа нечем топить.
- Пошлите им для сугреву партию оранжевых шарфиков.
My translation (for your checking :) ):
January, 2006. Fradkov came to Putin:
-- Europe is in panic -- without gas there are no fuel for heating
-- Send them a consignment of little orange scarfes for getting warm
:)
Циничные анекдоты - хорошие анекдтоты, если они, конечно, не про тебя. Я тут BBC почитал, прямо "газки-шоу" какое-то.
http://news8.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/ ... 568088.stm
Russian president clearly and cynically enough explained what was happening. These explanations are complete.
Coming from president's words, there are "good neighbours and friends", who are possible to make a compromise with in price issues. In practice it means inclusion of all the consumers of a "friendly country" in a varying degree in the chain of "Gazprom's" cross-financing, that the whole Russian industry uses now.
It would seem as though they have already tapped the keg:
Russia's state-controlled natural gas monopoly on Monday accused Ukraine of diverting about $25 million worth of Russian gas intended for other European countries, a day after Moscow halted deliveries to Kiev in a price dispute.
The only gas now being put into pipelines headed for Ukraine is intended for European customers, the company said.
Several countries reported problems Monday. Hungary, Poland and Austria all reported that gas piped to them from Russia through Ukraine had slowed down by between 14 and 40 percent.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060102/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl
You know this WHOOOLE problem could have been avoided if Ukraine didn't want 'independence' from the Union in 1991. Russia should shut off all the gas and oil... to the WORLD! That will teach them a lesson they wont soon be forgetting!
Ukraine didn't really want independance in 1991. It only went for independance once it was clear the Soviet Union was falling to pieces.
And with the current situation, Ukraine will pay in the end, but I think it'll continue to pilfer the gas designated for Europe, which will just make the affected countries pissed with Russia.
Germany's gas flow from Russia has dramatically gone down since the Russia "turned off" Ukraine's supply. Germany know it's because Ukraine is taking its gas, but they are just pissed with Russia. So Russia is pissing off some of it's biggest customers.
Well, firslty, Russia supplies only 30 percent of the Gas Ukraine uses, most of their gas comes from Turkmenistan. Secondly, Russia didn't turn off the gas, since they need to sell it to Europe (80% of the gas Russia sells the Europe is via the Ukraine), they just reduced the pressure such, that powerstations that run on gas could not work. Thirdly, east europe (not only Ukraine) is feeling the pain of Gazproms action, since there is a decreased supply of natural gas to them. I think all in all, it hurts Russia just as much as it does Ukraine (Europe will everntually find other suppliers).
Yes, we are aware they are not cutting the gas to Ukraine. Because how could they steal the gas if it was switched off.
And 30% is a significant proportion, especially in winter.
Russia's problem is the fact that so much of the gas has to travel through Ukraine, meaning they can'st simply turn off the supply.
It's up to Ukraine if they take the gas or not. Russia can't physically stop them taking gas without stopping the rest of Europe getting gas either.
According to BBC:
Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin said his country had also been cut off, after refusing to pay $160 per 1,000 cubic metres, according to the Itar-Tass news agency.
In 2005?Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
Today in 2006 Ukraine has no gas from Turkmenistan because the contract is not sigined yet. Turkmenistan sold all their first quarter gas to RF and got the money already.
Needless to say, you are right:Quote:
Originally Posted by N
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europ ... ne.gas.ap/
"[...] Meanwhile, analysts said a Russian bid Thursday to buy up natural gas from another major supplier to Ukraine, Turkmenistan, would leave the Central Asian nation with little gas to sell to Ukraine.
But Ukrainian Prime Minister Yekhanurov told Kiev's private Era radio Friday that Ukraine would get the 40 billion cubic meters of natural gas it was scheduled to receive from Turkmenistan in 2006 "because an agreement has already been signed."
Yekhanurov said transport could be a problem. Turkmenistan sends gas to Ukraine via Russia. A Russian-run company, Rosukrenergo, charges Ukraine for the transit of Turkmen gas, and Gazprom owns the pipelines.
Ivan Varga, a director of Ukraine's state-run Naftogaz, said Ukrainian gas reserves from vast underground storage tanks could last until mid-April."
Here is another article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/inter ... r=homepage
MOSCOW, Jan. 2 - For President Vladimir V. Putin and Russia, 2006 was supposed to be a banner year. Instead, it has begun badly, and with problems of the Kremlin's own making.
The Kremlin, which labored in 2005 to distance itself from the ill will that accompanied its destruction of the Yukos oil company and the bungled handling of the rigged Ukrainian presidential election in 2004, has begun the new year with a display of politics and bullying, followed by partial retreat, that is raising fresh questions about its reliability as an international energy partner.
The problems are familiar. Even as Russia assumed the presidency of the Group of 8 industrial nations on Jan. 1, a position it hopes will improve its stature, Mr. Putin returned to two issues that have previously undercut his reputation: control and management of Russia's energy resources and Russia's waning influence in Ukraine.
The source of the trouble is a relatively straightforward question: What will Ukraine pay for imported Russian natural gas? It is a commodity that Ukraine, and much of Europe, desperately needs.
Gazprom, Russia's state-controlled gas monopoly, seeks $220 to $230 per 1,000 cubic meters for Ukraine, abandoning the favored rate of $50 for a more realistic market rate.
Ukraine, while agreeing that it must eventually pay market rates, seeks a much lower price and a transition period to a full rate - an arrangement that Russia has offered to other former Soviet nations.
The Kremlin's solution on Sunday was to reduce gas flows through the pipeline system for Ukraine, a major transshipment point for gas going to Western Europe.
The move, in retrospect, seems both spiteful and unwise, because Russia then tried to send gas through Ukraine to reach European customers on the other side.
One predictable result was a threat to winter fuel supplies in Europe. By Monday, declines in pipe pressure were reported in Austria, France, Italy, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary, which said it would have to cut exports to Bosnia and Serbia and Montenegro.
Even Germany, usually a faithful Russian ally and Russia's largest gas customer, wondered aloud whether Russia could be trusted.
Michael Glos, the German economy minister, said in a radio interview that Germany would like to import even more gas, but could do so only "if we know that supplies from the east are dependable," according to Reuters.
Speaking of Russia, he added, "One should naturally act responsibly."
Supply concerns seemed to ease Monday as Gazprom announced it was restoring most of the gas flow to Ukraine. Mr. Putin, amid a fresh din of international criticism, appeared to blink. [bold by kalinka_vinnie :)]
But a set of oddities and problems remained.
First among the oddities was that Mr. Putin, who managed to draw unflattering attention to himself, did so in a case where almost no one disputes that in principle he is right: Gazprom's customers should pay market prices.
Western governments, the European Union and the customers themselves have not argued otherwise. The issue is what market prices are, and how Ukraine should reach them.
To build what seemed a manageable business dispute with a neighbor into a problem for much of Europe, Mr. Putin, a former K.G.B. colonel who last year called the collapse of the Soviet Union a "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century," cast himself anew.
For the purposes of this quarrel, he became not only a capitalist but a monopolist, embracing a free-market rationale in its harshest form. His position was clear: If Ukraine does not like the price, let its factories slow down, let its lights dim, let its people freeze. And let Europe worry if it will have heat this winter, too.
Other problems followed, as the dispute attracted more attention. While the Kremlin argued for market rates, it refused to acknowledge why Ukraine's gas prices have been so low. The job of clarifying the record fell to Andrei N. Illarionov, who was Mr. Putin's top economic adviser until he resigned in frustration last week.
Mr. Illarionov said in a radio interview that Ukraine's subsidized rate was essentially a problem of the Kremlin's own creation. Gazprom had agreed to the $50 price in 2004, he said on the Ekho Moskvy radio station, to help a Kremlin-backed candidate in Ukraine's presidential election.
The $50 deal was supposed to last until 2009, he said. But when the Kremlin's candidate lost the presidency to Viktor A. Yushchenko - who wants Ukraine to join the European Union and NATO - the Kremlin changed the rules. Market rates were invoked.
Moreover, Gazprom has been using different pricing criteria for different nations. Georgia pays $110 for the same amount of gas, as does Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Baltic states, which are members of the European Union, pay $120 to $125. Moldova pays $160. Belarus, a firm Kremlin ally, pays $47.
The origins of Ukraine's current rate, and this variable pricing regime, allowed critics to suggest that the Kremlin suffers from amnesia and hypocrisy alike.
The problems only piled on. Experts also charged that Mr. Putin had undermined the credibility of Gazprom, Russia's largest company.
Gazprom has been seeking international respect and trying to shed its image as a Kremlin stooge. But at important moments last week, it was not the company's official leadership making proposals for settlement, but Mr. Putin.
Mr. Putin's appearances put to rest any questions about who is handling this affair, and underscored anew that Gazprom is a company bound to the whims of a head of state.
Investors will get some measure of how the company has fared in the short term when the Russian stock market reopens after the Russian holiday season, on Jan. 10. The news, experts say, has been bad.
"Once again we are seeing that Gazprom is not a leading international company," said Dan Rapoport, managing director of CentreInvest, a Moscow-based investment firm, "but a tool of policy making for the Kremlin."
[quote]Moreover, Gazprom has been using different pricing criteria for different nations. Georgia pays $110 for the same amount of gas, as does Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Baltic states, which are members of the European Union, pay $120 to $125. Moldova pays $160. Belarus, a firm Kremlin ally, pays $47[quote]
Isn't that the key here. It is obviously politically motivated. If Moscow just admitted as such, it wouldn't make them look so bad.
Barmaley posted this in the Ukrainian longue, asking for a translation.
http://www.ljplus.ru/img/s/h/sholademi/ua-gaz.jpg
"And let those cursed Russians choke on their gas"
I did the translation myself so corrections are welcome.
Politically demotivated©, I reckon.
The original massive discount was politically motivated, but the conditions under which that massive discount was granted no longer apply, so...
Yes, but it still means it has to do with politics. E.g. Russia says they are bringing the price in line with EU prices. So then why are Belarus' still paying fuck all?Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
Cos Lukashenko sucks Putin's cock and Yushchenko won't.
[quote]
So then why are Belarus' still paying @@@@ all?
Cos Lukashenko sucks Putin's cock and Yushchenko won't.
[/qoute]
Gazprom is the co-owner of Belarussian pipes. The same thing is about Georgia. Ukraine is known to rebuff Russia's proposal to share its pipelines with Russian companies. Whose cock Yushchenko sucks is not a secret, either.
His American wife'sQuote:
Originally Posted by mishau_
That's kind of what I was getting at. Sorry for being too oblique.Quote:
Originally Posted by TATY
Anyhoo...
to say that Ukraine is being punished is to look at the situation back-to-front, IMO.
The default level here is not 'what other former Soviet states pay', the default level is market rates. Any discount on those rates is a bonus to whomever receives one. What Belarus pay is between Russia and Belorus, it has @@@@ all to do with Ukraine. Ukraine is not being punished, they are simply no longer being rewarded. That might be semantics, but it's pertinent semantics.
Now, you can argue over whatever it was they were giving Russia in return for that discount rate. In this case I'd say it was probably unswerving loyalty (which is pretty much what Mishau said, but cleaner). In the eyes of Gazprom/ Putin/ Russia, Ukraine have withdrawn that unswerving loyalty, so is it any surprise that Russia has reciprocated by withdrawing their huge discount?
Harsh for Ukraine and her economy, maybe, but tough sh*t, that's the path she (and her people), have chosen.
Yes, this is what I was getting at in earlier posts. But as I said, its the timeframe rather than the actual price increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
You can't copyright that! It's already been coined (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=demotivate)! And to think that I was about to award you "Best Use of a Fake Word" in the New Year!" You were about to join those hallowed few who created "strategery" or "threeve..."Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
I wasn't to trying to copyright the word 'demotivated', I was copyrighting the phrase 'politically demotivated'. :)
Well in that case, your copyright is approved. Scotcher is now the sole proprietor of the term "politically demotivated" on the MR boards. You have been warned. Прикалывайте осторожном! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
I have copyrighted Kateryna Yushchenko's penis
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/TATYUK/kyush.jpg
Uh... wake up and smell the fish!Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
Read the article again:
"Mr. Illarionov said in a radio interview that Ukraine's subsidized rate was essentially a problem of the Kremlin's own creation. Gazprom had agreed to the $50 price in 2004, he said on the Ekho Moskvy radio station, to help a Kremlin-backed candidate in Ukraine's presidential election.
The $50 deal was supposed to last until 2009, he said. But when the Kremlin's candidate lost the presidency to Viktor A. Yushchenko - who wants Ukraine to join the European Union and NATO - the Kremlin changed the rules. Market rates were invoked."
It might look all rosy in your world, but you can't break a contract just because you regret you have made it. Why should the Ukraine pay market price anyway, if 80% of Russian Europe-export gas passes through their territory, doesn't that give them some leverage, say yee?
Me thinks that this is all alot of hot air.
The West will express angrity with Ukraine only when the situation repeats with $50 prices. That's evident, because it's naturally.
Will russian lose the game?
I think "The $50 deal was" really "supposed to last until 2009" and it has been and it is, and probably will be. However, it gives Russia some more room for maneuver. For example, now all Europe has found out how bad it is to deal with artificially revolutionized post-soviet republics such as Ukr. It also a good reason to wobble Ukr now and then and play cat-and-mouse games with it. Ukr's refusals come from its stalemate caused by Ukraine's unskillful goverment and is considered to be a Russian-Ukrainian internal affair. This "of course internal" affair will let Russia loose on political pressure upon U. It's not the proifit, but yet great benefit, eventually more profitable than $230 per 1000 c/m.
Whaaa?Quote:
Originally Posted by mishau_
I don't really think Europe is so angry with the Ukraine, but more skeptical with Russia as a reliable energy partner...
Yes, all the news in Britain, and from what my Germany friend says about German news place the blame firmly at the doorstep of the Kremlin. But the West love critising Russia, so of course they are gonna side with Ukraine.
Basically it's like a big fat rich kid bullying a little poor kid. We sympathise with the poor kid.
Right. Ignoring the "economic dispute" angle on this one, it simply seems to Westerners that this is the next logical step in the nationalization of the oil-gas sector. Regardless of your position on this, think about it like this for a moment: Russian authorities have shut down Yukos (a very big deal here in the press), were accused of meddling with the Ukranian elections in 04', and now they do this (to say nothing of the Belarus-Russia relationship). Guess what -- that spooks people, however fair or not that may be.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
Anyway, I think you're going to end up being just as murky on the final outcome; I would expect that this ends when Ukraine agrees to pay a somewhat higher price -- but nothing like 4x increase. Both sides will claim "victory:" Ukraine will claim that it sucessfully defeated the Russian increase and in doing so helped out all of Europe and the Russians will say they got their rate hike while at the same time acting like a responsible G-8 power...
More from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/inter ... rmany.html
Gas Halt May Produce Big Ripples in European Policy
By MARK LANDLER
Published: January 4, 2006
FRANKFURT, Jan. 3 - Russia's shutdown of natural gas lines to Ukraine lasted less than 48 hours, but the repercussions could last far longer in Western Europe, which also relies heavily on Russian gas.
Even as the flow of gas to Germany, France and other countries resumed at normal levels by Tuesday evening, public officials and energy experts called on the Continent to rethink its energy policy.
Russia's standoff with Ukraine has exposed a deep European dependence on Russia, the officials and experts said. To reduce that vulnerability, they said, Europe should seek out other gas suppliers and develop alternative fuels, like clean-burning coal, nuclear power and renewable energy.
"If Russia is prepared to run the risk of cutting off supplies to its neighbors if they have a disagreement, how reliable are they as a supplier?" said William Ramsay, deputy executive director of the International Energy Agency, which advises 26 industrialized nations. "You have to ask the question."
Russia is virtually the sole supplier of gas to large swaths of Central and Eastern Europe, and to close neighbors like Finland. France and Italy buy between a quarter and a third of their imported gas from Russia.
In Germany, which is by far Russia's largest customer and has made energy the cornerstone of a broad economic alliance with Moscow, some experts said the standoff might even have political implications.
"Germany's alliance with Russia was not just conceived as a commercial deal, but as a way to integrate Russia into Europe," said Alexander Rahr, a Russia expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin. "This could be in jeopardy if the gas dispute continues."
The European Union, he said, is likely to rush to Ukraine's defense in its dispute with Russia over gas prices, giving Germany little choice but to fall in line. And Russia can no longer count on the friendship between President Vladimir V. Putin and Gerhard Schr
The appendix#4 with 50$ deal is no more than "филькина грамота".Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
Juridic explanation is here - http://phorum.proua.com/read.php?1,487762
Texts of the contract - http://pravda.com.ua/news/2005/12/22/36935.htm
Of course does not. Ukraine officialy accepted the European Energy Charter and she cannot block the pipe.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
Never mind the fish, treacle, I am not taking one side against the other, just pointing out that this was a totally predictable result of Ukraine's recent political change of direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
Did anyone really expect Russia to continue to subsidise Ukraine's economy to the tune of billions of dollars a year, given Ukraine's stated desire to join both the EU and Nato and to distance itself from its overbearing neighbour, even at a time when the WTO are trying to force Russia to cut its own domestic fuel subsidies?
Give me a break.
Slightly petty and vindictive it may be, but it wis totally understandable and should have been totally predictable to Ukraine's Powers That Be.
Looks like they might have struck a deal now though:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4579648.stm
The West could be dissapointed by Ukraine only when the price remains $50 and Ukr. That's evident, because it's naturally for every market. It means like this: the price was $50 and everything went well, then Russia does something (f.e. inreases the price for U.) and Europe stops receiveng the gas. Russian is guilty, because it is the initiator of negative changes on the market in ths case. Europe will need status quo.
Now then, let's suppose, the price has not changed, but Ukr. syphones off the gas anyway and Europe stops receiving it again. Then Ukr is guilty in this case, becuase it is not Russia that is the iniciator of negative changes. That's natural for market. Russa would say 'listen, we did totally nothing, so look for disturbers outside Russia, please'
Would russia lose the game if the remainded 50 dollars? By no means!
"The $50 deal was supposed to last until 2009", ok, that's probably so. However, regardess the price - let it be even the same $50 - it gives Russia some more room for maneuver. For example, now all of Europe found out now how bad it is to deal with artificially revolutionized post-soviet republics such as Ukr. It also is a good reason to play cat-and-mouse games with Ukr. Ukr's refusals come from its stalemate caused by Ukraine's unskillful govermening policy and is considered to be a Russian-Ukrainian internal affair. This "of course internal" affair will let Russia loosen political pressure on U. It's not the proifit, but yet great benefit, eventually more profitable than $230 per 1000 cubic meters.
The BBC doesn't write "the Ukraine" and neither do I. А то они нашли тут Судан, едрена вошь. I also say "на(из) Украине (Укарины)" as the Russian I speak is my Russian, not something invented by Ukrainian and other politics, fox 'em all with their innovations in the english and russian languages.
The BBC may not write "the Ukraine", but they sure do say it on TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by mishau_
Like Russia would say that. Are they gonng say that to Germany? Their biggest customer?Quote:
so look for disturbers outside Russia, please
There's no reason of it and hardly will. But still. It was Russia that iniciated the price increase. So, no wonder, that Russia was up to its neck in troubles. It would have been quite another matter, if the gas price had remained the same, namely $50, and Ukraine had started stealing Europe's gas all the same.Quote:
Like Russia would say that. Are they gonng say that to Germany? Their biggest customer?
In that case Russia would not have been implicated in the row at all and Russia might have told anyone 'we didn't do anything, didn't increase the price, didn't reduce the amount of gas in pipes, etc; so solve your problems outside Russia'.
What happened indeed was that once Russia had shaked a trifle the market by their new price policy, the West warned Russia quite justly that they might reconcider reliability on such a partnership. The West said 'do whatever you want, we won't intervene, but provide us with the gas in corpore.' It means that if Ukraine as it has signed the new conrtract goes on with stealing, the EU will blame Ukraine only. That's why Ukraine won't do so anymore (until Russia implements a new price policy :) ).
But I wonder why NAFTA-gas never proposed to increase the price for the transition. It seems to me that some of NAFTA-gas chiefs were bribed or blackmailed.
Ok, maybe it is a disputable question:
From wikipedia: "In English, the country is sometimes referred to with the definite article, as the Ukraine."
"the Ukraine" seems just much more natural to me than "Ukraine"
"I drove through England" - OK
"I drove through Ukraine" - my ear not like
"I drove through the Ukraine" - my ear like